We hope the journal isn’t intimidated by Darwin’s Outrage Machine, Inc. Just think, some people are now allowed to bring this up. And not just as an inhouse titter, followed promptly by dismissal of the question.
The editors need not, of course, sympathize with the ID perspective to think that evidence for it should be permitted to be discussed. At one time, that was a conventional intellectual position. But the Darwinians, as we’ve said here earlier, are an early flowering of Cancel Culture. No evidence may be discussed that may be thought to favor an Incorrect view.
Eventually, people, we are going to have to start rewarding the Darwinians for banning and persecuting advocates of design in nature. Look, guys, it’s only fair. Mediocrities steam themselves into near oblivion to destroy the idea and their efforts only fan the flames. Sadly, all we wanted was a serious discussion. We never asked them to be Roman candles.
Which is fine in principle. But be realistic. The Darwin mob, an early flowering of Cancel Culture, will not be satisfied with anything less than retraction and the obliteration of the careers of everyone involved. If that is accomplished by scandalously spurious means, all the better for the mob. That increases its sense of power and self-justification. Saying NO! To them is an act of liberation.
The Darwinist commenters below the tweet would put one in mind of coyotes except that coyotes must, perforce, have pack standards. They can’t just howl ANYTHING they please… Well, we shall see what happens next.
In Klinghoffer’s telling, maybe the editors thought the paper was okay, maybe even interesting. Then they got mobbed by Darwin thugs and now can’t cringe low enough to atone for their grievous error. Surely there’s a floor down there somewhere…
At ENST: “Sure enough, after Darwinists discovered the article, they succeeded in obtaining a “disclaimer” from the journal’s editors, who proclaimed their bias against ID. But the disclaimer actually made publication of the article all the more significant.”
It would be nice to continue a civilized discussion of what fine-tuning means and implies in biology. Would incorporating an expectation of fine-tuning into biology hypotheses lead to quicker advances sooner? How will we test this—assuming that the village Darwin mob doesn’t storm the place, demanding that we shut down the discussion?